"Rights are not a zero sum game" - This is an interesting statement, because while it is not wrong, it comes very close to a wrong statement without acknowledging the fact. Namely, rights come with responsibilities attached.
If anyone ever claims that they have a particular right, and no responsibilities associated with that right, then you may look around and be firmly assured that you will find someone being oppressed, and their rights denied, to enable the other person's "free" rights.
Hi Kiernan. I didn't compare "being trans" with believing that you've been abducted by aliens, but believing that you're a woman (if, say, you're a man). If what it meant to "be trans" meant believing that you're a woman (say) there wouldn't be a difference here. But I don't think it's the case the "being trans" requires any such belief. Indeed, having the protected characteristic of "transexual person"/being trans would make no sense if it required that someone believed that they were a woman (say). That it part is the reason the Supreme Court goes to such length in their judgement to distinguish to emphasise the difference between the protected characteristics of "sex" and "transsexual person".
bald rights
"Rights are not a zero sum game" - This is an interesting statement, because while it is not wrong, it comes very close to a wrong statement without acknowledging the fact. Namely, rights come with responsibilities attached.
If anyone ever claims that they have a particular right, and no responsibilities associated with that right, then you may look around and be firmly assured that you will find someone being oppressed, and their rights denied, to enable the other person's "free" rights.
But you have not considered this one important note: bald.
not sure if i read this right did you compare being trans with believing you have been abducted by aliens?
Hi Kiernan. I didn't compare "being trans" with believing that you've been abducted by aliens, but believing that you're a woman (if, say, you're a man). If what it meant to "be trans" meant believing that you're a woman (say) there wouldn't be a difference here. But I don't think it's the case the "being trans" requires any such belief. Indeed, having the protected characteristic of "transexual person"/being trans would make no sense if it required that someone believed that they were a woman (say). That it part is the reason the Supreme Court goes to such length in their judgement to distinguish to emphasise the difference between the protected characteristics of "sex" and "transsexual person".